Has the Democratic Party finally heard the anti-war message?

[welshTerrier2]

People said they're leaving the Party. Bloggers were furious. Money was cut-off. It got really ugly and it got really ugly in a hurry.

Some have argued the anti-war wing of the Party is a fairly small but vocal minority. They argued the progressive wing made a ton of noise but was not important in an electoral sense. I've even seen a few "we're better off without them" posts.

One thing I've never seen is any evidence that the anti-war left wing of the Party was wrong, ever wrong, about Iraq.

So, the Democrats sold out their anti-war voters and the noise in response was deafening. It didn't mean anything would change. Party leadership heard the message loud and clear. The question on the table now has been whether it mattered.

The Party, since before this war began, and I'm talking here about Party leadership, not the rank-and-file and not even all elected Democrats, has done some horrible things regarding Iraq. Put another way, they've lacked vision and courage from before day one. With Democrats controlling the Senate in 2002, they brought the hideous IWR to the floor. They did NOT have to do that. To their credit, when you combine the votes of Democrats in the House and the Senate, a majority of Congressional Democrats voted AGAINST the IWR. I commend those who did.

But those calling the shots brought the bill to the floor. And it passed. And the fate of perhaps a million Iraqis was sealed. The fate of more than 3400 American troops was sealed. Add another 50,000 American troops seriously injured to that number. But, Democrats had many more chances to get it right. No, until this year, they did not have the power to stop the war. But they could have at least demonstrated they understood it. They failed to do that.

Instead, we've seen almost nothing but capitulation. We've seen almost unanimous votes for more and more funding. Giving more funding in year one and year two and year three and year four and now year five of this insane war and occupation was wrong before the invasion and it has been wrong every time since. Democrats kept investing and investing and investing and investing and investing. What they invested in, as viewed by the anti-war left, never made any sense. We saw the invasion as a push for oil. We never believed in bush's stated motives. We saw imperialism; the Democratic Party saw incompetence. Progressives believed that nothing would be accomplished in Iraq because bush never really planned to accomplish anything beyond setting up a puppet government and stealing Iraqi oil. The Democrats kept investing in bush. They gave him more money and more money and more money and so on.

But, until this last vote, they had no real power. Although they should have spoken out against the absolute immorality and hopelessness of the policy even while they were in the minority, they could not have stopped the madness. This time was different. Democrats allowed bush to frame the issue. Either they agreed with bush or were just incredibly politically inept. Neither is very appealing. They allowed bush, a totally unpopular failure in this country, to make the Iraq funding all about whether Democrats "support the troops." When you're deciding whether to provide more funding for a war and occupation, the right framing should have been whether the war and occupation made any sense. You do NOT continue to invest in a venture that is totally bankrupt. The Democrats couldn't have overridden bush's veto; they could have prevented a funding bill with no conditions or timetables from ever coming to the floor for a vote. They caved. Completely. It was wrong. The anti-war left told them it was wrong. The anti-war left has always been right about Iraq. We were right before the IWR vote. We were right with each and every new funding bill. We were right with this last funding bill. The Democratic Party ignored us.

Well, friends. It might just be that we finally have been heard. It might just be, for whatever reason, that the Democratic Party has finally come to agree with us. It might just be that we are about to see the birth of real opposition to the war and occupation of Iraq. It is long past time for immediate withdrawal. It is long past time to stop talking about "residual forces". It is long past time to believe any progress, even an iota of progress, can be made with the US remaining in occupation in Iraq. We need to get out and we need to get out as quickly as troop safety allows. Finally, after almost five years, those we had hoped would represent us may have gotten the message.

source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-hayden/democrats-likely-to-harde_b_50424.html

Democrats Likely To Harden Anti-War Stance As "Surge" Fails and Election Year Approaches by Tom Hayden

Seeking to keep pace with public opinion, key Democratic leaders will soon be considering a peace initiative including full withdrawal from Iraq, revision of the United Nations authorization, and a diplomatic offensive to engage other countries in assisting Iraq.

The proposal represents a sharp difference with the Iraq Study Group -- and current Democratic -- suggestion that combat troops be withdrawn by next spring while leaving tens of thousands of American troops to train the Iraqi armed forces. The notion of "training" a largely-dysfunctional and sectarian Iraqi army, in the absence of a sweeping overhaul of the Baghdad government, is viewed increasingly as unrealistic. The pressure of the anti-war movement and restless public opinion is also propelling these strategists to recommend a stronger withdrawal position than the Congressional majority and presidential candidates currently are taking. <skip>

The new thinking rejects the unconvincing mantra that the US troops will "stand down" when the Iraqis "stand up". The new realism starts from the premise that the US, whatever the intention, has fostered, trained, equipped and armed a majority-Shi's sectarian state whose security ministries are riddled with militias engaged in brutal repression, torture, ethnic cleansing and even death squad activities. Under these conditions, it is deeply unlikely that the current regime will liberalize itself or meet the benchmarks set forth recently by Congress. Who will the US troops be "training" then? <skip>

Changing the current paradigm dominating the media and most Democrats will not be an easy matter, however. It will take place in the form of internal presentations and dialogues over the summer months, with results expected by September at the latest. Currently the presidential candidates and Congressional leaders are locked into the model that only combat troops may be leaving, sooner or later, while other troops will be left behind to fight al-Qaeda, train the Iraqis, guard the embassy and visiting dignitaries, and hunker down on a smaller number of bases. <skip>

The persistent pressure of the peace movement is having an effect, though more slowly than the morality and patience of many can bear.

[Raven]

1. Nothing short of a full withdrawal will do. We're past the question

of whether we should be in Iraq. We are now on to the "fine points". Leaving US troops behind for "force protection" and training and routing out "terrorists" is just not acceptable to many in the peace movement. Turning Iraq's oil resources over to "private entities" a/k/a US interests is a recipe for continuing disaster. We have to push these candidates to support a full withdrawal.

[welshTerrier2]

3. it looks like they're heading for a "full withdrawal"

that damned well better include all those Blackwater mercenaries too ... the US has paid more than $4 Billion to those militant maniacs. they pose a very real danger to all of us when they return.

[Totally Committed]

5. Blackwater mercenaries, all bases, etc...

Every American and American entity (Halliburton, Exxon, Mobil....???) better be gone.

COMPLETE withdrawal.

TC

[peacetalksforall]

2. I wish this country could risk breaking into 5 or 7 parties? The

Democratice Pary (particularly the DLC) needs any wake up calls that shake them hard. I get disgusted. There is no loyalty from me if theire is killing, invasion, plundering, lying, and theft.

[Totally Committed]

4. I'll believe we have been heard when complete withdrawal from Iraq is announced,

Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are closed forever, and we return to the Geneva Conventions. I'd love to see everyone get behind Gore's environmental policies. I'd also like to see the DLC lose ALL its influence on this Party and its policies. Something tells me none (or few) of these things will happen in my lifetime.

TC

[peacetalksforall]

6. DLC = corporations/barons = war (some corporations/barons)

[Pithy Cherub]

7. The Blogging Lions of the Left are ascending to

the top of the political food chain, by virtue of the speed of the internet communication medium. It rocked official DC Dems that their "press conference" sprouting right-wing talking points about not having enough votes was not the prevailing view. The fact that Blogger Sound & Fury lasted like an energizer bunny showed the weakness of the mainstream news medium Dem officialdom used. The mainstream medium quickly started covering how the "far" left was in revolt. But another factor happened as well within the mainstream media, Keith Olbermann fiercely rained fire and brimstone upon the kneelers and kowtowers from his anchor desk causing a deafening cheer and repeated viewing using our medium, the internet.

Meanwhile, the official plutocrat Democrats thought that by going home with a bill signed by AWOL War Czar W, was the best political move. And therein lies the issue, strategists that these officious Democrats hire cast their spells, runes and cloud interpretations at hapless capitulating Democrats based on what is the best thing to do in that political moment, NOT what is the right thing to do based on Courage, Morality, Leadership and History. Hence they are consigned to bear the burden of votes that live in Infamy because the path to self-actualization is perceived as too steep, fraught with peril and does not protect an incumbent. The Lefty blogosphere now has enough time to start searching for more progressive candidates that reflect the population. That the reaction was that bad is causing strategists to say we need to do something...the anti-war people are mad, really mad, and you see how they are making people pay for the IWR vote cast 5 years ago. The handsomely enriched and beautifully coiffed strategists now need to make plans, rather than when they should have after the last election, except they did; they counseled patience and storage for more dry-assed powder. Tom Hayden should run screaming from a strategist (still) employed by capitulators, rather than cheering for the tight crony circle of consultants that made the last fuck-up for Democrats. Where is the official DC Dem inclusiveness and visible expansion of incorporating views by including those people who got it right - Feingold, for one, or a representative from him.

While there are signs to be appreciated that the stiff-necked pride of Democrats seeks to go left, my champagne stays on ice until tangible results occur. That means not lightening the criticism until they actually do something worthy, not one damn minute before.

edit: clarity due to anger typing

[welshTerrier2]

11. i like to "keep hope alive"

that's an interesting reaction you had to Tom Hayden. i've had similar reactions to him over the last year or two. sometimes he sounds like he has one foot on the platform and the other foot on the train.

and I know you're right about Podesta and the Center for American Progress. the sad truth about them is that this latest speculation that they might be about to make a major policy shift on the war is that it seems to derive completely from the political pressure from the left and not at all from any core values or understanding of the realities in Iraq. while I appreciate the speculated about change in course and even a drop or two of credit for lighting the way, how pathetic is it to know that they lack both values and vision and care only of political gain? how does that bode for the next war or the next or the one after that? not too heartening, eh?

and I don't counsel an easing in our intensity because of Hayden's speculation. your closing statement is the only path: That means not lightening the criticism until they actually do something worthy, not one damn minute before. I like to "keep hope alive" but I'm not foolish enough to let that hope alter my best judgment or change my actions until that hope is realized. We have to keep up the drumbeat. That does not mean, at least for me, that "small rewards", probably in the form of mere recognition, cannot be offered publically as the first and subsequent signs of change become visible to us.

if Democrats begin to send a message to Americans that progress cannot be realized, that the whole effort is bankrupt, that the policy leads nowhere, I say even without proof of follow-through that we rise to support their words and, of course, demand action on them.

as an aside to all this, i will point out how truly astonished I've been at the influx of party centrists on DU. even in the DU rules, it was clear that this website is for the furthering not just of Democrats but of PROGRESSIVE IDEALS. there never was and still is not anything remotely progressive about endorsing, and funding, bush's Iraq policy. those who support republicans are banned here; why not those who support right-wing republican policies? failure to uphold the rules about DU's commitment to progressive ideals has led to an influx of political poison and its resultant divisiveness.

good post, Pithy. try not to hurt your keyboard. trust me, it's not worth it. trust me. i know. ;)

[Pithy Cherub]

14. This latest influx

is from fear because of the submissiveness they practiced believing those tinny calls on the internet could not upset the status quo. They bragged about New Donkey's and DLC position papers and all of that went "delete" as far as the blogosphere was concerned. Their books are not selling and neither are their stale ideas from a bygone era. Now, it is go and try to turn the internet debate and "support" certain candidates. I had to laugh at CNN yesterday who brought up the blogs and how HRC's debate performance was pretty good for a candidate at Daily Kos because she usually comes in behind No Freakin' Clue on the monthly straw polls.

Progressive ideals versus their brand of capitulation/pragmatism is the next fight since they already lost/conceded the battle for the Moral High Ground. It's hard to fight from a ditch.


As always, thank you WT2! ;)

[gratuitous]

8. Okay, we failed at first; but here's what I see as the next step

Right now, the talking points out of every Democrat's office should revolve around getting some idea of what acceptable progress come September will look like. We can't impose benchmarks on the Iraqis, but let's start lining them up for the Bush administration. What will "success" look like? Answer now, not three months from now. I want to know ahead of time what the administration will call progress, rather than waiting until September to watch them trot out a carefully-calibrated and sequestered series of meaningless statistics and call that success or progress.

Can we lift the curfews without all hell breaking loose? Can we keep the lights on dependably in the major portions of Baghdad? Are the roads safe to travel to and from municipal necessaries like the post office, the airport, and the city hall? Do the telephones work reliably? Is the mail delivered timely and efficiently?

And if these benchmarks aren't met, why not? What's the plan -- detailed, with timelines and progress markers -- to meet them. No more of the solution to this clusterfuck being clustering more and fucking harder; it's time and past time for this occupation to work, and September 2007 is plenty of time to have made it happen. Hell, we beat Germany, Italy and Japan on three continents in less time.

[welshTerrier2]

10. only immediate withdrawal is acceptable "come September"

all the stuff you're talking about, like benchmarks and timelines and measures of progress are over and done ... if Hayden is correct (See excerpted article in OP), it sounds like the Democrats may finally be about to move past all of that garbage and go right to immediate withdrawal ...

as some have said, I'll believe it when I see it but that's the current speculation ...

there will be NO PROGRESS in Iraq, EVER ... it's time for the Democrats to acknowledge that.

[gratuitous]

15. I say that mostly for media consumption

I think most of the Democrats in Congress "get it." And I think most of the populace "gets it." What I want to see is someone or a group of someones (figuratively) pinning down the administration, covering it with fire ants, and demanding specific answers to specific questions. And then repeating those answers over and over again over the next 90 days, so that when those specifics don't pan out (as you and I both know they won't), there isn't an escape hatch or wiggle room. Hammer the popular media, and in turn demand that the popular media hammer the stone-brains about what "progress" is supposed to look like in Iraq (by their own definition), and how what's there now ain't it.

Then the next step is building the pressure to cut off funding for this failed invasion, bringing the surviving troops home, and holding those responsible for this debacle to account.

[ananda]

9. There never was a q. of whether..

.. we should be in Iraq. Iraq should have
never happened. Period.

Sue

[info being]

12. So you keep believing

As loyal Dems always do...again and again.

[welshTerrier2]

13. i have some faith in Tom Hayden

the Democratic Party? not so much ...

right now, i'm a barely hanging on Democrat. i will not vote for anyone in 2008 who has voted to fund this war and occupation and i will not vote for anyone who has failed to demonstrate leadership trying to end it ...